https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382206 The case involved issues regarding the legality of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) when initiated for one limb and imposed for another, the applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in K. P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT, and the validity of the notice under Section 274. The Third Member concluded that the penalty orders were not sustainable as the penalty was initiated for one limb and imposed for another, emphasizing the importance of clear and specific grounds in the penalty notice to uphold principles of natural justice. The appeals by the assessee were allowed, and the penalty orders were set aside. en-us Wed, 06 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Jun 2019 12:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382206 The case involved issues regarding the legality of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) when initiated for one limb and imposed for another, the applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in K. P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT, and the validity of the notice under Section 274. The Third Member concluded that the penalty orders were not sustainable as the penalty was initiated for one limb and imposed for another, emphasizing the importance of clear and specific grounds in the penalty notice to uphold principles of natural justice. The appeals by the assessee were allowed, and the penalty orders were set aside. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 06 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382206